linux-kernel - Re: [PULL REQUEST] Please pull rdma.git

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMimsUMgRhWgSChFS39nw3XggsVGSnmgP+L4gSco=vAF3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:46:58 +0200
From:   Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] Please pull rdma.git

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 11/17/2016 5:24 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:

[...]

> I agree with you.  It doesn't fix your patch.  The commit message can
> still be fixed up.

>> Please do not send it to Linus and wait for them to respond. I
>> disagree that it fixes my commit b/c my commit was prior to when
>> route-able RoCE  was introduced and on that time TOS had no relation.

> I agree.  A better fix tag would be the commit that added RoCEv2 support.

But this is the smaller part of the problem. The bigger part is that I
have asked for clarifications on the patch and they didn't provide
anything. So if you are picking patches where a reviewer comments are
ignored, what lesson are you teaching the submitter, that he can just
continue with this practice? why you letting this go that way?

>> does a tiny enhancement for a 10y old commit of Roland, why you think
>> we need it in 4.9-rc6 or 7??

> I don't, it's in the mlx-next branch which means I'll queue it up for
> the 4.10 merge window.  I have no plan on sending that branch for 4.9-rc.

Are you going to comment on that to the submitter? if not, they are
going to continue with this practice.

How are we supposed to realize from patchworks + your github branches
that patches that were submitted for 4.9-rc are picked for 4.10? this
is very confusing and error prone too.

Please comment also on the bunch of patches I pointed you where the
copy you have picked into your tree (pulled it from somewhere?) isn't
what was submitted.

Or.